Feb 1993, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables two boys aged ten, lured a 4 year old boy away from a shopping centre. The 2 boys lead Bulger on a 2 and a half mile walk abusing him on the way. The 3 children passed over 38 people whilst Bulger was bruised and bleeding. Venables and Thompson lead Bulger to a rail track, where they kicked him hit him with bricks, stones, and a 22lb iron bar, after Bulger had died Thompson and Venables lay Bulger across the tracks and weighed his head down with rubble in an attempt to cover up what they had done. Bulger was found 2 days later. The investigation cost £500,000, dealing with the murders alleged to of cost £5m, Venables and Thompson only tried with murder were to be detained at her majesties pleasure. They were detained in secure units costing £5000 a week including luxuries. After only being detained 8 years, 5 years ago they were relased an given new identities costing several million. Should they have been released and given new identities?
2006-09-12 10:03:34 · 31 answers · asked by ? 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They should have been kept in a lot longer and they shouldn't have been given new identities
2006-09-12 10:14:27 · answer #1 · answered by Tracy B 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
When they committed the crime they were juveniles. If they served what passes for a murder sentence these days, and they did, then they should have been released, although I personally believe that they should have had at least ten more years - based on nothing more than my ill-will, mind you, not on my sense of law.
If they hadn't been given new identities, then they were at risk of being killed by vigilantes. Remember that the UK is a country where a pediatrician can have her house besieged by a mob who think that she's a criminal because they don't know the difference between a children's doctor and a child molester. People need to be protected from that kind of behaviour.
Sorry, but sometimes - very infrequently - law should take precedence over what we might consider justice. Would you rather they had been in stone cells eating rotten bread and drinking putrid water, at risk from rapists? What if someone innocent were sent to such a place (it has happened)?
Why does killing a tiny child merit harsher punishment than killing somebody else? Do you believe that some victims of brutal murder in some way deserved to die like that, because they were older and therefore more culpable - maybe prostitutes, or criminals?
If Jamie Bulger was more innocent than most because he was so young, when why don't you grant the same kind of extenuation to Venables and Thompson? They were very young, ten years old. Do you think ordinary ten-year-olds commit crimes like that? Don't you think it's possible that, for whatever reason, they had no idea of what it meant to be killing someone? Do you really believe that they should have been punished like adults who could with more reason have been expected to know better?
These issues aren't simple, is all I'm saying.
2006-09-12 14:41:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
these two child murderers caused the biggest problems in the UK in relation to the age of criminal liability.
The reason why they got out is down to the fact that they could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, the ECJ - look it up its T & V v UK.
Venables and Thompson I personally believe are mentally ill and they should have been locked up in a mental home and never been allowed out again. I think they should never have been released and given new id's.
Its awful to know that these two child murders have been given a life of luxury for what they have done, its awful to say it these two came from awful families and for these two it angers me to say that crime does pay.
2006-09-13 13:01:40 · answer #3 · answered by Sky 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nothing can bring little James back.
Justice was done, in that the killers were convicted and served their sentences. But it depends what you mean by justice. Do you mean retribution, punishment fitting the crime etc. Or do you mean, rehabilitation, the criminal realising they have done something unspeakably wrong, realising this, and becoming productive members of society.
I would like to try the second way. However, there are no easy answers. It is easy to say, string them up, execute them, but none of that is going to bring James back .
However, my heart aches for what happened to that little boy. It is an evil world sometimes.
Read Blake Morrison's 'As If' for a comprehensive and unhysterical account of the Bulger case.
2006-09-12 10:13:42 · answer #4 · answered by Jude 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They were ten years old and probably doing what they seen in a film , horrific as it may have been I fail to see how locking them up for ever can help anything .
With regards to cost do you honestly think they were rubbing their hand together and enjoying the expense .
This was a crime of society as a whole , it should never occur to a 10 year old boy to kill anyone , cinema , books , radio , TV , newspapers all bring violence into our homes every day and we don't just allow it we encourage it , because it wouldn't be there if we didn't buy it .
Venables and Thompson no longer walk in society as those ten year old kids world ceased to exist the day they were arrested and I would bet now the two men that walk in their places would give anything to turn back the clock .
When I seen Jamie Bulgers story on the news I wanted to cry for all three boys , my only thought was what are we doing to these kids ?
If the same crime were committed by a 16 year old I would scream KILL THEM !
2006-09-12 10:31:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
The difference is the same, some say, because if they were kept in, the cost would have been as high or even higher than was used for their new identies. These were evil kids, no doubt, but did they really know what they were doing at the tender age of 10?What did their parents think their kids were doing in all this time? Your vivid description may be suspicious!
2006-09-12 10:49:18 · answer #6 · answered by The Guy 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It must be far too soon to release these boys. It does not matter how young they were at the time, their actions were wicked in the extreme. They have been given a better life than many youngsters who have done nothing wrong in their lives. They should not have been given luxuries. It is impossible to imagine the torment that the parents of Jamie Bulger went through. Who is thinking about their feelings?
2006-09-12 10:10:06 · answer #7 · answered by astephens29 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I think a far more apt punishment for them would be to release them with no protection whatsoever and make everyone aware of who they are and where they are living.
These boys are now living 'normal' lives, perhaps with girlfriends who do not know who they are and what they are capable of, they may even have children of their own by now which sickens me.
James Bulger didnt have the chance to live his life at all and they have only lost 8 years of theirs.
They should have been burned at the stake.
2006-09-12 22:31:09 · answer #8 · answered by Catwhiskers 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is a very emotional question. Some would say, they did their time and should be free. Some say they should be locked away forever for such a crime despite their age. I think they should have hanged for their crime. My husband would argue against this. As a parent. I would have killed them with my own bare hands for what they did but others have other opinions. I truly believe that if a murder of this kind can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, they should die - no question. Many disagree. This was a truly jaw dropping crime and they should have paid with their own lives as far as I'm concerned. Enemy making opinion - I know.
2006-09-12 10:10:55 · answer #9 · answered by helen p 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am really on the fence with this one:
In one hand it was disgraceful what these children done, you know that Jamie's family are still suffering and will forever!
But in the other the two boy's were just young them selves, and to an extent victims of society!! They both came from very broken families and their life was not the best. I am not saying they were too young to know what they were doing - they obviously knew exactly what they were doing. They were also very deviant in how they managed to hoax little Jamie away from his mum a on that long journey of doom!
But 8 years is a long time when you are a child and it is, the time of your life where you are going to change and develop the most - compared to say, a 30 year old going out perpetrating the same crime - who i think should never get out of prison!
I have recently read Paul Britton, Jigsaw Man and he was one of the first people to the crime scene and he explains to all very well - you should read it!
2006-09-12 10:27:39 · answer #10 · answered by Kaz 1 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Without knowing the exact details of the crime, it is impossible to say. Only if it can be proven that such a thing will never happen again. If it does, then lock them up for good. Much of it depends on how what their mental state was when they committed the murder. But they should have known better. Hard to say.
2006-09-12 10:07:07 · answer #11 · answered by Joker 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋